Monday, January 31, 2011
Highlighting your most effective paragraph thus far
To conclude class, I’d like you to review the draft you brought into today for our peer review workshop and select the paragraph that you think best reflects your ability to analyze rhetorically another persuasive text (or rhetorical event). Copy it into your comment and in a few sentences, explain why you chose this particular paragraph. I’ll ask for a few volunteers to share their paragraph with the rest of class for a brief discussion before we finish today’s workshop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brigham questions whether having to shovel before noon is really worth talking about, and his answer is that there is more to this policy than what meets the eye. His opinion is that in today’s society there are few bonds that bring neighbors together. “Tragedies get us out of our wired cocoons and crossing the street to talk to each other” (Brigham). This statement seems very morbid, but holds to be very true. This appeals to the audience’s pathos because no one wants to think about how they come up short in the time that they spend with those around them, but in the high paced life we live, it’s reality. People think of shoveling as hassle and not an opportunity to catch up with their neighbors and do something thoughtful. Brigham does not blame people for living busy lives and getting caught up in them, instead he proposes a way that people can improve their neighborhood involvement with a small amount of time and effort.
ReplyDeleteHere's Jessica's comment:
ReplyDeleteThe Denver Post makes the argument that Senate Bill 54 should not be passed because of the term, “probable cause.” This refers to the statement that, “the bill goes a step further than earlier Colorado laws by allowing police to arrest people if there is probable cause to believe they are in the country illegally or if they have committed serious crimes or are facing deportation.” (Denver Post) The newspaper makes the claim that this would affect the citizens of Colorado by potentially making the existing Latino populations targeted as a population living in the country illegally. This would be an invasion of privacy and racial profiling, and would result in complaints and demonstrations against the law and government, as seen in Arizona.
I chose this paragraph because it gives an accurate and spot-on example of why the bill is being ethically questioned. The audience should remember the demonstrations that Arizona had when populations felt that they were being targeted unfairly by law officials due to their appearance. This also takes into conflict particularly Denver’s stance as a ‘sanctuary city.’
I honestly only recognized the last of the panel: Andrew Jenks. Jenks appeals to my generation with his simple MTV show that aims to break through social barriers and reveal the hardships of different groups in society. His show’s topics range from nursing homes to professional cage fighters. But even more than that, Dylan Ratigan highlighted the fact that arts and entertainment is the only topic that both Democrats and Republicans can come together and agree upon civilly. So in this way Andrew Jenks serves as the mediator between the dueling parties, and is therefore our “only hope to spread the word of economic reform in the United States”, according to Ratigan. In the beginning, Jenks explained how he began college at the age of nineteen, but had a burning desire to use a video camera and videotape people. Everyone in the audience can relate to having a burning desire to do something. But aside from the political debate, Jenks was the persona and linkage to his audience at the University of Denver: students the same age as he. Ratigan pointed to how Jenks really is the key to moving forward, not just because of his age but also because of his link to entertainment, a field that brings people together. Jenks responded along the lines of, “Unrelated to my show, it is sad to watch political parties fight mostly because we are never going to move forward as a country that way. You know, I work with groups of people who do not have time to care about politics because they are busy trying to stay alive or follow a dream. If you have a dream, you have to be willing to lose it all to gain it all. When you follow your dreams, you move forward, not sideways.”
ReplyDeleteThis article starts with simple examples pointing out how harmless something like Pepsi ridiculing Coke drinkers or advertisements for Visa that implied American Express users were hopelessly behind the times. This tactic of insulting your competition instead of proving superiority by your own performance has become such a toxic environment, which for most has seemingly become accepted and smart. Brown uses strong and descriptive wording to get across the pathos of this argument such as “evil”, in a sentence that reads, “They’re not just wrong, they’re evil, or at best totally incompetent”. As a reader I start to relate to the argument as Brown has warmed me up to the issue even though, in this case, I already have a strong opinion in favor of his main argument. But for those who might not totally agree or do not know of the issue directly, Brown starts with the simple premise first, then relates it to politicians and politics. I see this as broadening his audience, taking something that doesn’t directly relate and making it relate.
ReplyDeleteIn this article Mike Littwin analyzes the president’s State of the Union speech, and Obama’s very deliberate words used to appeal to his actual audience- the American voters. In his sarcastic writing style, Littwin very harshly speaks of how U.S. citizens are easily swayed by the overwhelming optimism that protrudes out of our presidents, both current and past, in public speeches. However, in doing so, Mr. Littwin never writes in superiority to the reader, instead he admits, and probably exaggerates his like flaw as an American. He references “we” throughout his piece, classifying himself as one of the many that is persuaded by the irresistibly upbeat speeches given by the president.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, he does not criticize the president for playing the ever-so-common “optimism card” for he realizes that it is exactly how one is to win elections, and the American hearts and minds. Littwin only encourages readers to reflect on the information, more or less hope, which is being given to them almost subliminally.
However, a rhetor’s ethos is just one piece of the puzzle. While a rhetor must establish ethos, a good reputation goes nowhere with an audience without solid, logical proof and social context for an argument. While Haley’s argument is important, the Presidential State of the Union Address gave his argument more context. While education reform in America has been an ongoing concern, Haley used kairos as a way to enhance the urgency of his argument. As the president reintroduced this issue into the minds of America, Haley attached to this to further challenge the American public on education while it was fresh on their minds. With the nation talking about education reform again, it gives people a reason to care about what Haley has to say in this article.
ReplyDeleteThe editorial goes on to explain that banning magazines with the capacity to hold excessive ammunition have no purpose other than empowering owners to easily kill a lot of people, as hunting doesn't require such readily available rounds and neither does any self-defense purposes. The author uses a persuasive logos appeal by explaining that a paranoid homeowner is most likely not going to be invaded by 33-armed assailants, for which a magazine such as Glock offers would be considered necessary. Although the restriction of the right to bear arms is considered unconstitutional or unpatriotic and therefore leaves the writer with no commonplaces; the article states that, "This is not a debate about taking anyone's guns away. It's simply recognition that if people want to kill a lot of people, the ability to fire a lot of bullets quickly makes it so much easier." This excerpt strengthens the writer's logos appeal by assuring gun activists that this is a matter of public safety rather than an attempt to take away the right of every citizen to own guns. It also develops an ethos appeal because the writer demonstrates their good will towards the audience by insuring that the safety of the American people must come first.
ReplyDeleteI chose this paragraph because it has a strong quotation and an analysis of the writing. It also identifies different appeals and explains why they are effective.
I have not done much with this paper so far. I have barely begun to truly analyze the rhetorical appeals of the author. Here is the closest thing I have so far. It is more of a background and still part of the introduction.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very sarcastic toward President Obama’s speech and expressed many skeptical ideas and flaws in Obama’s argument. Along with skepticism toward the State of the Union address, Harsanyi also expressed his skeptical opinion on Sputnik. He believed that the Soviet’s effort to out-do the United States resulted in unnecessary spending which had negative effects on the already stagnant, dying economy.
From the very beginning, the Post recognizes that not everyone is happy with the fact that a paid event is being hosted in a city park. The editor writes, “City parks are for the public. We get that.” In doing so, the editor effectively sympathizes with the public’s concern over whom the city parks really belong to. This establishes good will and cleverly serves to earn readers’ trust by simply regurgitating a contemporary maxim of sorts and conveying unwavering support for it. This pays dividends in that most readers react positively early on in the editorial and therefore, probably read the rest of the piece with interest and a sense of open-mindedness. This sets the stage for the Post’s elaboration on their theory that the Big Air event is not a sign of bad things to come for the city’s public parks.
ReplyDeleteThe piece I choose to do an analysis of for the Denver Rhetor blog was from the opinion section of Denver Post. The piece was “ Leave immigrant law in desert” by the editorialist at the Denver Post. This piece was written because there is anger over the lack of immigration enforcement. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass common-sense immigration reform. As well as Washington In general hasn’t worked hard enough to seal the border. The people of our society who are frustrated with the current immigration situation are hoping Washington will find a solution that will work.
ReplyDeleteI chose this paragraph because this was my intro and i thought it was very strong. It identified the why and how of the issue and revealed some great background information as well. This gives a great start to the rest of my piece.
“The article in the Denver post I chose to report on rhetorically was, “Quillen: People-killing profits the financial benefits of American health care”, written by Ed Quillen. In this piece Quillen expresses his concern with the fact that the health care in our country is much inferior compared to other countries even though we commit a higher percentage of our GDP to health care. He then goes on to make the correlation that if we “Feed people junk food and keep them fat and lazy. That's good for the economy. Then Americans have to buy medical care, which further jacks up the GDP” (Quillen Denverpost). He obviously has issue with the cyclical nature of the system especially in an area that could be changed for the better. In this article Ed Quillen does a good job of using rhetoric through his method of presenting his case to the audience he is trying to capture. For the most part he wrote deductively because he makes a case of A+B=C, feed people junk food to keep them fat and lazy + the benefits on the economy = the purchase of health care and the increase of our GDP.”
ReplyDeleteMy essay is still a work in progress and this is my intro paragraph. We were supposed to choose our best paragraph and where I am currently in my essay I didn’t have any good paragraphs currently. So I choose what I felt was my weakest and why that is so. This paragraph is very broad, with monotonous language. As an intro paragraph this does not do a very good job of grasping the attention of the reader and holding it. At times it can be a little confusing and could use to be re-worded and re-worked. I feel that I have a good article to write on with plenty of information to present but, this intro paragraph does not do it any justice. By recognizing this I now have more direction and understanding of what is expected and where to go with my paper.
Mr. Harsanyi concludes his article by appealing to a logical nature. He states, “But if the pro-life movement is going to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the nation, it's not going to need more God. It's going to need more reason.” He uses this tactic because of his initial question of how many people are turned away from a pro-life aspect because of the religious organizations. More people from the secular part of the American population would be willing to accept the pro-life more if it was not so much, “You will go to hell for killing one of God’s creations” and more “A single celled zygote has the ability to develop into a grown human adult. Based on the law of biogenesis, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats and humans beget humans. An unborn child does not suddenly become human as it exits the womb; it is human from the start.”
ReplyDelete